3
Inspector_Cheez 3 points ago +4 / -1

Fuck the Confederacy. Secession was 100% based on the determination of Southern landowning politicians to keep men in bondage.

From South Carolina's declaration of secession:

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have *denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery;" they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

3
Inspector_Cheez 3 points ago +3 / -0

Seriously, is there any scenario in which this creep not only beats Trump, but wins the popular vote by eleven fucking points?

Do they really think anyone believes this tripe?

1
Inspector_Cheez 1 point ago +1 / -0

Oh yeah, well quinnipiyackec pollz says his approval is 11% so STFU trumptards

2
Inspector_Cheez 2 points ago +2 / -0

Dropping them off is best unless you trust the USPS!

2
Inspector_Cheez 2 points ago +2 / -0

Note that Nadler, according to the story, said absentee ballots are pretty much the same thing as mail-in. Not true.

Absentee ballots are specifically requested for the use of someone who cannot be physically present in the state to vote in person - military, works temporarily out of state (like President Trump), lives overseas but a US citizen and a state resident. You also must be registered to vote and specifically request an absentee ballot from your county registrar well in advance of the election.

Huge difference between absentee and sending mass amounts of ballots to inaccurate voter rolls for everyone in the state.

8
Inspector_Cheez 8 points ago +8 / -0

Pretty sure a version of this same crap was found to be used by a US Army training center last month. No joke.

4
Inspector_Cheez 4 points ago +4 / -0

Which "S" scare word does their headline use:

SURGE

SKYROCKET

SPIKE

SOAR

1
Inspector_Cheez 1 point ago +1 / -0

Oh, I should have guessed. Can't actually run on the fucking issues, Dems. Just like Gillum's team creating fake news about DeSantis when DeSantis say "we can't money around with the economy" and that was all the media talked about for three weeks.

2
Inspector_Cheez 2 points ago +2 / -0 (edited)

It is explained by O'Sullivan's First Law.

https://www.conservapedia.com/O%E2%80%99Sullivan%E2%80%99s_First_Law

"Any organization that is not actually right wing will become left wing over time."

Edit:

O’Sullivan’s First Law first appeared in the October 27, 1989, issue of National Review:

Robert Michels — as any reader of James Burnham’s finest book, The Machiavellians, knows was the author of the Iron Law of Oligarchy. This states that in any organization the permanent officials will gradually obtain such influence that its day-to-day program will increasingly reflect their interests rather than its own stated philosophy. To take a homely example, congressmen from egalitarian parties somehow end up voting for higher pay and generous expenses for congressmen. We can also catch an ironic echo of Michels’s law in Stalin’s title of General Secretary, as well as in the fact that powerful mandarins in the British government creep about under such deceptive pseudonyms as “Permanent Under-Secretary.” All of which is by way of introducing a new law of my own. My copy of the current Mother Jones (well, it’s my job to read that sort of thing — I take no pleasure in it) contains an advertisement for Amnesty International. Now, AI used to be a perfectly serviceable single-issue pressure group which drew the world’s attention to the plight of political prisoners around the globe. Many people owe their lives and liberty to it. But that good work depended greatly on AI’s being a single-issue organization that helped victims of both left- and right-wing regimes and was careful to remain politically neutral in other respects. Its advertisement in Mother Jones, however, abandons this tradition by calling for an end to the death penalty.

The ad itself, needless to say, is the usual liberal rhubarb. “In American courtrooms,” it intones, “some have a better chance of being sentenced to death.” That is true: the people in question are called murderers. But Al naturally means something different and more sinister — namely that poor, black, and retarded people are more likely to face the electric chair than other murderers.

Let us suppose this to be the case. What follows? A mentally retarded person incapable of understanding the significance of his actions cannot be guilty of murder or of any other crime. A law that punishes him (as opposed to one that confines him for his own and society’s safety) is unjust and should be changed — whether or not he faces the death penalty. On the other hand, someone who is guilty of murder may be executed with perfect justice. His race or economic circumstances do not affect the matter at all. The fact that other murderers may obtain lesser sentences does not in any way detract from the justice of his own punishment. After all, some murderers have always escaped scot-free. Would Amnesty have us release the rest on the grounds of equality of treatment? Finally, Amnesty’s argument from discrimination could be met just as well by executing more rich, white murderers (which would be fine with me) as by executing no murderers at all. Significantly, Amnesty’s list of death-penalty victims” does not include political prisoners. America does not, have political prisoners, let alone execute them. Why, then, Amnesty’s campaign on the issue?

That is explained by O’Sullivan’s First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church. The reason is, of course, that people who staff such bodies tend to be the sort who don’t like private profit, business, making money, the current organization of society, and, by extension, the Western world. At which point Michels’s Iron Law of Oligarchy takes over — and the rest follows.

Is there any law which enables us to predict the behavior of right-wing organizations? As it happens, there is: Conquest’s Second Law (formulated by the Sovietologist Robert Conquest):

The behavior of an organization can best be predicted by assuming it to be controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies. Examples: virtually any conservative party anywhere, the Ronald Lauder for Mayor campaign, and the British secret service. That last example is, however, flawed, since the British secret service actually was controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies in the form of Kim Philby, Anthony Blunt, et al. In which case, Conquest’s Law should have operated to make M1-6 a crack anti-Soviet intelligence service of James Bond proportions. But these are deep waters.

Incidentally, Bob Conquest, who also doubles as a poet and literary critic, presciently commented ten years ago on the recent controversy over the Mapplethorpe exhibition. His 1979 collection of essays, The Abomination of Moab (not, alas, published in this country), coined the term Moabites to describe the false friends of art as opposed to its open enemies, the

Philistines: “The characteristic of modern methods of destroying art is that they are carried out by those who far from being indifferent or hostile, are deeply concerned.” The Biblical Moabites were the insidious enemies of Israel “who, from their capital at Shittim, infiltrated temple and harem and set the children of light whoring after strange doctrines.” Today’s Moabites have been out in force to defend both Mapplethorpe and a strange doctrine of — unrestrained government funding of the arts. The falseness of their friendship consists of their denial of any distinctions, moral or artistic or political, where Art is concerned. Morally, they argue that if Mapplethorpe’s pornographic photographs are banned today, the Venus de Milo will have to wear a bra tomorrow. Artistically, they discern no distinctions between different works of art which would offer a general basis for providing or withholding subsidy. And, politically, they obliterate any distinction between the absence of a subsidy and outright censorship.

Once something is called Art, Bob told me over the phone, Moabites take. it to be transcendental and beyond human criticism: “In which case it is, in effect, a religion and thus debarred from federal funding under the First Amendment.”

1
Inspector_Cheez 1 point ago +1 / -0

Before anyone dunks on McCarthy and says "talk is cheap," remember he is the House MINORITY Leader and can't do much while Pelosi and her goons control the House. Boot out the Democrats in November, and we can go back to Speaker McCarthy and demand legislation.

25
Inspector_Cheez 25 points ago +25 / -0

This doesn't mean the dam has broken, but the CCP has released a yuge amount of water from the dam to prevent it from breaking, which has flooded many low-lying areas.

15
Inspector_Cheez 15 points ago +15 / -0

Many people have noticed this. It's because communists are true believers who fully believe that they are morally right and are justified in whatever tactics are needed to create their workers' paradise.

12
Inspector_Cheez 12 points ago +12 / -0

God bless JRR and his based bro CS Lewis. They both were full of faith and courage.

1
Inspector_Cheez 1 point ago +1 / -0

Saving you the click:

“The thing is, the national anthem means different things to different people,” Barkley said. "I'm glad these guys are all unified, but if people don't kneel, they're not a bad person. I want to make that perfectly clear. I'm glad they had unity, but if we have a guy that doesn't want to kneel or the anthem means something to him, he should not be vilified,” Barkley added.

6
Inspector_Cheez 6 points ago +6 / -0

And you wonder why God had to incinerate entire cities in the Old Testament

4
Inspector_Cheez 4 points ago +4 / -0

That's exactly right - this is what happened in 2006. Republicans went full borrow-and-spend RINO in Bush 43's second term, and voters decided to punish them by replacing them with Democrats - Democrats who later voted for Obamacare.

18
Inspector_Cheez 18 points ago +20 / -2

Yeah they suck but most of them will vote to acquit Trump if the Dems try to impeach him again. If the Dems get enough seats in the Senate (50+Romney), they can remove Trump from office. So we have to live with the RINOs and trust Trump to kick them in the nuts when he needs legislation passed in his second term.

3
Inspector_Cheez 3 points ago +4 / -1

Trump era = Trump can steamroll RINOs to get his agenda passed, minus some creeps like Romney. Much different than the Bush era, where the RINOs told Bush what they wanted and he happily signed it into law.

view more: Next ›